Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, he thinks Phil Jones is a denier Even though the GW scam is falling apart fast there's going to be incredible push-back by these people. This crowd was within months of setting up a cap & trade system that was going to suck billions of dollars out of the West and put it into the hands of third world criminal governments.
Brave Stranger ! ... Excellent Post !
And it appears that America's two "Towering Intellectual's : Doc Joe & his sidekick HO were absolutely in the "Thick of It" to forcibly attempt to cap & trade America's AZZZZZZZZZZZ to the hilt !
Where is Al Gore when you need him ? That bad boys got some explaining to do !!!
Wow, what a clever response. You must be supr-smrt.
Alright genius, I'm calling you on your BS. Explain in detail how the first law of thermodynamics applies, and how "heat from steam/internal combustion engines" is more of a problem wrt AGW than people heating their homes.
Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the last decade or two, you surely know that the AGW proponents never even tried to claim that "heat from steam/internal combustion engines" is/was the source of the warming.
I look forward to your physics lesson.
swagger ! ... Thanks for trying you best !
It may be that good old buddy Al Gore is the only authority on Mother Earth who can effectively respond to Old Gringo's many worrisome questions ! Thanks / Lamar
I'll say that heat from lawnmowers is trivial in comparison to the heat produced by vehicles, power plants, factories, climate control systems and all human controlled heat engines of various types that have been running continuously and in ever-increasing numbers for the past two centuries.
Of course, it fits your argument to ignore that heat contribution. A contribution that was absent prior to industrialization.
Hey you can go down this road all you want! It helps my point!
You guys dont even understand your own theory! LOL!
Please note, what I provided is THE arugment for AGW. you can find that information just about any place on the web. It isnt "my argument"
As "My argument" is that the earth is warmer due to natural forces although how much warmer is debatable because the methodology of temerature gathering has failed to deal with land use changes and deforrestation.
If you want to think people are heating up the earth because of the heat generated by all the various engines we use... be my guest, the rest of us are getting a good laugh out of it!
Those on your side are embarrised you brought it up and that really makes me tickled.... LOL!
The link above is to the site Michael Mann and friends created to explain thier theory.
If you dont know who Michael Mann is, he is one of the top 3 or 4 men in the world who is a real scientist and a real proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming. (in otherwords he beleives humans are causing Global Warming)
read up! then you can come use big words like physics and Thermoldynamic and palioclimatology! It will be great!
Heat pollution (atmospheric) is a term used to describe the release of heat into the environment by human activities.[1] By contrast, global warming is thought to be the result of the increase in greenhouse gases (CO2 emissions).[2]
further, it should be pointed out that those who do not agree with the AGW theory point to Heat pollution (Urban Heat Island Effect) as a major cause of inaccurate surface temperature readings.
Heat polution is a real problem for people who live in cities as heat is the major cause of surface level Ozone which is a major polutant and a source of any number of resperatory sicknesses.
However, there is no indication that heat pollution is a major factor in Global Warming as the link suggests, Global Warming is caused (in AGW Theory) by man made heat trapping gases in the atmosphere.
No citations or sourcing provided. It is simply a call to action, hot air claims (opps I made a funny) that are assumptive politically driven claims that provide no evidential support, nor does it even support general implications to which the wiki entry suggests. This isn't even a source as much as it is wasted opinion based text.
Source 3 (Kenneth M. Hinkel; Frederick E. Nelson (2007));
The conclusions state no links to AGW nor even suggest such. They merely state an increased temperature in urban areas.
This is obvious and it is a point of fact that has been brought up numerous times when evaluating the surface record temperature trends. That is, the drastic warming attributed to AGW is in fact cherry picked sites that show bias due to UHI.
Yes, we know asphalt and other urban influences will show a warmer reading. Water by the way is also wet. Care to provide some support to the link that this is causing climate change?
This link also does not create a link between UHI and climate change. It simply states a known fact that temperatures in such areas will show an increase compared to many rural (Not always, as some forms of vegetation areas will show higher than urban). Again though, this as I said does nothing to support the link to climate change. It is more of a safety awareness sheet.
Much like source 4, this is simply an information sheet and suggested steps to help reduce UHI. It provides no citation nor does it suggest a link to climate change.
Of the Statement in Wiki:
Quote:
Heat pollution (atmospheric) is a term used to describe the release of heat into the environment by human activities.[1] By contrast, global warming is thought to be the result of the increase in greenhouse gases (CO2 emissions).[2] Experts on the climate have debated the broader subject of global warming as well as its potential constituents. These include heat pollution, the greenhouse effect, and solar variation.
Its only direct attempt at support for climate change is source 2. Which is:
1)Without any proper citation to support to the claim the wiki article mentions or that of a cause to climate change. The wiki implies it, but doesn't support it with the citation.
2) The main link of support is to the Environmental Defense Fund. A known environmental advocacy group and one that has had no problems stepping all over its face in the display of the the facts concerning the science.
None of the links provided even remotely support your conclusion and that is beside the fact that it is an obvious slanted entry attempting to find support for a political bias.
Here is a tip. Do not use wiki as your source. It is extremely poor for primary source is subject to errors, bias and agenda.
Can you actually discuss the science past posting "I am new to the internet" sites that only make you look ignorant of the topic? Seriously, I have seen you ridicule people in numerous posts for being "stupid", "Ignorant" and "uneducated" and yet you provide us with such amateur arguments and support that a first grader could defeat without even trying? Where is your "intellectual" position? So far, all I see is a lot of UHI coming from your side of the fence.
read up! then you can come use big words like physics and Thermoldynamic and palioclimatology! It will be great!
Wouldn't that be cool if he did? Then we could actually for once have a discussion on the science. Though I seriously doubt he will do such. In fact, just because you provided the link, it will be immediately placed into his "biased sourced, can not be trusted, denier" source list and he will fallaciously refute it simply because you used it.
I have an idea!
Lets start sourcing those sites and see if we can catch them. We can claim the source says something that supports a skeptic argument and see if they wave it off with a fallacy.
I am betting that they will. It would really show how some of these posters simply deflect and attack without even knowing what it is they are attacking. *chuckle*
Wouldn't that be cool if he did? Then we could actually for once have a discussion on the science. Though I seriously doubt he will do such. In fact, just because you provided the link, it will be immediately placed into his "biased sourced, can not be trusted, denier" source list and he will fallaciously refute it simply because you used it.
I have an idea!
Lets start sourcing those sites and see if we can catch them. We can claim the source says something that supports a skeptic argument and see if they wave it off with a fallacy.
I am betting that they will. It would really show how some of these posters simply deflect and attack without even knowing what it is they are attacking. *chuckle*
I shutter to think what would happen to this nation if another dust bowl happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent Post !
